Well the big news for 2014 as we begin this new year is that in February, at the Creation Museum, I will be debating the well known Bill Nye The Science Guy! In the next day or so we will post more details including how you can buy tickets to this event. It's quite rare these days for such a well known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist--so we do expect a lot of media interest. For now, I just wanted to let you know about this--keep watch for details!

Well the big news for 2014 as we begin this new year is that in February, at the Creation Museum, I will be debating the well known Bill Nye The Science Guy! In the next day or so we will post more details including how you can buy tickets to this event. It's quite rare these days for such a well known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist--so we do expect a lot of media interest. For now, I just wanted to let you know about this--keep watch for details!

That "well known evolutionists" rarely debate with creationists about sums up Scam's scam. There is nothing to debate!

Of course in the real world of science debate takes place in such arenas as the science lecture circuit and learned peer review publications, places where creationists absent themsleves completely and voluntarily.

Anyone who has ever worked in science will know there is no debate, and there hasn't been one for several hundred years.

I've just been put off one Facebook group for describing the Haeckel's embryos claim as another YEC lie (which is what it is) and for not showing YECs respect. Huh ? In this day and age YECs deserve no respect.

YECism is the silliest and daftest thing ever to have come out of western civilisation in the 20th century. Generally YECs who can't see this are devoid of science. I detest the leaders who simply lie to the scientifically illiterate, conning them into thinking there is some sort of debate when there isn't one.

Geologists aren't debating geology in the same way chemists aren't debating the periodic table.

I do hope Nye is familiar with the observation/historical science crap that Ham no doubt will regurgitate. I hope Nye knows what he's getting himself into.

Of course in the real world of science debate takes place in such arenas as the science lecture circuit and learned peer review publications, places where creationists absent themsleves completely and voluntarily

Indeed, places were people actually do real research for the benefit of all mankind.

YECism has contributed nothing to the real world of science, nothing at all.

Maybe Nye should ask Ham to give a few examples. I'll bet he'll be stumped.

Well the big news for 2014 as we begin this new year is that in February, at the Creation Museum, I will be debating the well known Bill Nye The Science Guy! In the next day or so we will post more details including how you can buy tickets to this event. It's quite rare these days for such a well known evolutionist to publicly debate a creationist--so we do expect a lot of media interest. For now, I just wanted to let you know about this--keep watch for details!

Happy New Year (not that I'm suspicious about the number 13 and was eager for 2013 to end).

Good for Nye. I hope Nye wipes the floor with Ham on science matters and that it does not turn into a slanging match about 'atheists' using 'fake' science to attack poor persecuted biblical Christians in America. It will be interesting to see what topic they come up with. Nye has a habit of making statements that may not obviously relate to the silliness that comes out of AiG and the Creation Museum, without always explaining their relevance, which allows Ham to allege that he 'does not understand science properly' or is 'confusing speculation about the unseen past with observable science' - which of course is playing to the YEC gallery (or should that be the bunker).

Expect much beating about the bush and attempted obfuscation from Ham - especially if he is losing. I trust the event with have a suitable 'neutral' host/moderator. The fact that it is due to be staged at the Creation Museum of all places makes me wonder about that aspect.

Saying that there is 'nothing to debate' assumes they will be debating science (which I hope is the case). The debate would turn around is creation science scientific (no) and is evolution scientific and a justified part of mainstream science (yes) - a reality that both the non-religious and many religious accept even if the latter have apparently contradictory or disparate views in these areas.

Nye should be aware that people like Ken Ham announce as facts things they WISH to believe because of their view of scripture. This includes in the area of science. One would expect a Christian in a debate not to do such things, and Ham counts on this being most peoples' perception. He also wishes to create the impression that if a debate opponent like Nye rejects his statements then THAT person and not him is the 'liar' (Romans 3 verse 4). ALL science about past events is man's false opinion because it rejects the testimony of the Bible thus I Ken Ham speak the Truth regarding the past and my opponent lies. And Ham has already sought to undermine the scientific credentials of Nye before naming him:http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/blogs ... ationists/

Recently virtually all the comments on Ham's Facebook page about Bill Nye were filled with bile. But suddenly - and it may be different people commenting - it's "let's pray for Bill Nye that God will change his heart". Hearts do not get changed by people telling what are identified by the hearer as 'porkies' about scientific realities. Let us pray or hope that any such porkies from the mouth of Ken Ham are refuted and exposed.

If Bill Nye has any sense, he will read up on the creationist arguments and tackle them on those. On the big questions debate the non creationists were able to give examples to the no information is added. Were able to give examples of transitions. In short they'd gone in knowing exactly what they were going to face and were brutally confident.

If Bill Nye goes in unprepared they'll eat him alive because scientific language is cautious and creation 'scientific' language is certainty.

I think that should be "allegedly" Peter. Or "was made to appear as being unable to answer". I forget what fast one the creationists pulled, but fast one it was.

Or quite possibly couldn't answer? I'm not too sure about Dawkins. When it comes to many things, like religion, he's way behind the real rest of the world. He still lives in his cosy comfortable past where catholic priests frighten and abuse small children (his comments that the hell stuff is worse than child abuse - well in certain cases maybe BUT it doesn't happen any more and but child abuse does, why not deal with witch burning whilst he's at it) and Muslim fanatics come from Saudi and have been raised blindly in their faith.

Whereas the real world has moved on and no RC parent or teacher would allow their children be given nightmares any more and expect religious education to be more about giving to charity, Francis is wittering on about thinking more of the poor than gayness and the sort of person who would go on about hell that would have been identified by psychological testing before entering the priesthood. Likewise most Muslim fundies here have been raised here, far from blindly and far from sheltered from non Islamic ideas and ideals and are often disaffected, disengaged young people looking for a cause. The murderers of Lee Rigby for example could hardly be called Muslims from birth. Dawkins goes on about ideas evolving or memes yet refuses to acknowledge that religion evolves as well. Talk about hypocrite.

He'd be far better served looking to the American foreign policy or even the EDL for examples of why Islamic bombers have become politicised rather than the koran. Social, educational and political reasons that is why. And thats just for starters on how stupid and ignorant he is, his head is as firmly in the sand and in the past as any creationist when it comes to reading papers before sounding off.

And no I haven't gone soft on either the RCC or Islam or religion. I'm just being realistic. And if he wanted to spread atheism he'd be far better served looking to what religion gives people and dealing with that rather than his constant pretence of intellectual superiority and his constant claims that you cannot be a scientist and a believer. Despite the pieces of evidence glaring him in the face.

Then there is the other piece of spin that he's a brilliant communicator. But I've struggled to finish any of his books. The God Delusion was skimmable - and I agreed with much of it. The ancestors tale was dull and repetetive, as are every other book of his I've tried to plough thru. He spent about 20 pages just telling us he would be working backward and had come up with a new name to describe that. As if all his readers were as thick as ditch water. Maybe I'm just too thick or too sleepy for his style but I've read lots of other popular scientific books without any problem at all. Like Brian Cox, Simon Singh, Jerry Coyne, Alice Roberts and our own Paul. No giving up after chapter three or falling asleep in the middle of any of them.

But I've always bought into his other piece of propaganda that he's a brilliant scientist in his field. Is he? Or is he just average? His books always cite others like Miller but rarely his own work. So is he as good as his spin suggests? I'm finding it difficult to accept he might be given that he seems to be such an arrogant blithering idiot in so many other areas. But perhaps he is.

Anyway I'm beginning to wonder if maybe he really couldn't answer it, cos on the Big Question both atheist Steve Jones and his Christian paleontologist peer could and did. They also could and did give examples. It was fairly simple for them to eviscerate the creationist nonsense like no new information and information per se. It was not rocket science at all and it has been covered by the anti creationist sites ad nauseum.

Anyway good luck to Bill Nye. If he knows their arguments well he'll eviscerate them. Tho I guess whatever he says will be carefully edited.

If Bill Nye has any sense, he will read up on the creationist arguments and tackle them on those. On the big questions debate the non creationists were able to give examples to the no information is added. Were able to give examples of transitions. In short they'd gone in knowing exactly what they were going to face and were brutally confident.

If Bill Nye goes in unprepared they'll eat him alive because scientific language is cautious and creation 'scientific' language is certainty.

I think that should be "allegedly" Peter. Or "was made to appear as being unable to answer". I forget what fast one the creationists pulled, but fast one it was.

Or quite possibly couldn't answer? I'm not too sure about Dawkins. When it comes to many things, like religion, he's way behind the real rest of the world. He still lives in his cosy comfortable past where catholic priests frighten and abuse small children (his comments that the hell stuff is worse than child abuse - well in certain cases maybe BUT it doesn't happen any more and but child abuse does, why not deal with witch burning whilst he's at it) and Muslim fanatics come from Saudi and have been raised blindly in their faith.

Dawkins, in a sense, is somewhat of an enigma. As far as I can make out, he's not strong on mathematics (and has never claimed to be) and didn't do much serious and original science for the 20 years or so before he retired. However, he certainly was at the top of his profession before that.

You're right that, in a sense, he doesn't go much beyond science in understanding what is going on. I still find it perplexing that the USA is riddled with extreme creationism whereas nearly all other nations are not. The answer to that riddle does not lie in science. It's a social and cultural issue, mixed up in America's bizarre and unfathomable "culture wars" - a toxic and dangerous concoction of ideology, nationalism, paranoia, myths, bullying and arrogance. Nowadays, I keep coming across that mixture in US business circles and it's also impossible to handle there as well.